Raymond & Agnes by Edward Loder

[Master Jacques]

I am surprised at the gulf between your precise characterisation of Mark Milhofer's sound, Alan, and the high praise he has (for me rightly) won from the reviewers. Thinking about it, I suspect the 'problem' here may lie in the kind of voice which Mr Milhofer's detractors are expecting to hear in the role of Raymond.

Stylistically, it needs precisely the kind of lyric tenor with a cutting edge and fast vibrato which he provides - certainly nothing more Verdian or Italianate. The whole point is, that this opera is a growth from the native (ballad) tradition, which needs lighter singers, not an Italian (or German) one manqué. That's why Milhofer is, for me, spot on, and his fellow principals far less so. And whatever you think of his tonal quality, at least this recording catches the voice in its prime (which is something that can't be said for either Cullough or Greenan, sympathetic though their performances are.)

We all find certain voices inimical, which is a good thing: otherwise there would be one, perfect interpreter (generally the one we happened to hear first in a role and "imprinted") leaving the rest in the shade. Long may debate continue!

[Alan Howe]

Milhofer's voice is both wrong for this repertoire and poorly produced. Note that I compared him to Spyres, Hymel and Gedda, none of whom is a typically Verdian or Italianate tenor. Why? Because they have the body and evenness of tone that Milhofer so sorely lacks.

I'm afraid it is all-too common for reviewers to spend time on everything but the essentials when it comes to singing, namely evenness of vocal production and beauty of tone, neither of which Milhofer possesses. This was a particular bugbear of the late John Steane, vocal reviewer of Gramophone magazine, who frequently found himself in disagreement with colleagues over these matters. This is elaborated in his book The Grand Tradition and in his quarterly column in Gramophone. The debate continues today...

[Alan Howe]

Further comparisons - this time in Mozart:
Milhofer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGitg0CKclA
Alfredo Kraus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuuVOJoyBY
Jerry Hadley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BFVGBjij6g
Daniel Behle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflP45UjgBU
Juan Diego Flórez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKZXK9smflc
Francisco Araiza: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WMsUlyyhYc
Michael Spyres: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOtVmTuzzWQ&start_radio=1&list=RDXOtVmTuzzWQ&t=5
Peter Schreier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7Nhn1H7Zs
Léopold Simoneau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7Nhn1H7Zs

Here is a wide range of vocal types from different periods - but the whole point is that Milhofer suffers by comparison in two of the fundamental requisites of singing, namely evenness of vocal production and beauty of tone.

And just in case anyone thinks that no Brit can sing this properly, try Heddle Nash back in 1936:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Yokm6oBug
Finally, if you want a voice with a quick vibrato, have a listen to Lawrence Brownlee - he's everything Milhofer isn't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmAUSSt9nrA

[Master Jacques]

Alan, thank you for this. But I am not sure why Milhofer's Mozart singing is relevant to Loder, so we must agree to differ. As I have said, if one reads descriptions of the kind of tenor voice audiences for English opera expected in the 1850s (the "García" style, tone and vocal projection, in essence) the intelligent Milhofer gives us a very good approximation of the technique and qualities needed. It is very far from a Mozartian style, much closer to the tenorial style Sullivan was to demand.

There is no "right" and "wrong" here, merely questions of personal taste. We come at our vocal judgements from our own knowledge - and instincts, doubtless - as well as our experience of the repertoire.

I too am very much a discipline of JBS, my own tastes and critical faculties have been largely moulded by his "new criticism" methods and standards. We cannot say what he might have thought of this particular cast - I only wish that he were still here to tell us! - but if there is one thing I hope I have learned from him, it is to express reservations as "constructive criticism" and make sure to articulate the good qualities we hear, as well as the less appealing ones.

I believe we should try to follow JBS's lead in that courtesy. Loder's music is not easy to sing - quite the reverse, the mezzo role in particular makes impossible demands - and we need to give praise where it's due, and certainly couch our criticisms with respect.

[Alan Howe]

There is no "right" and "wrong" here, merely questions of personal taste

That is a statement with which JBS would have profoundly disagreed. Why? Because he believed that there are objective standards of vocal production/technique against which non-subjective assessments of singers could be made. If there is no right and wrong here, then anyone - however poor - can garner praise from the critics; and anyone can say anything about a particular singer. This is a very modern mode of thought - and one which goes against everything JBS believed.

Obviously, one can choose to prefer Milhofer in Loder; however, as I've demonstrated with the Mozart excerpts (a choice forced on me by the paucity of examples of Milhofer's singing), a vast range of singers of differing vocal types (not all typical Mozart tenors) are objectively superior to him in terms of voice production and technique - so that, say, Spyres and Brownlee (to name just two) would have been better choices. The problem, of course, is engaging a singer who is willing to learn the role.

JBS was a courteous man, that is certainly true. However, when I wrote to him back in 1977 extolling the virtues of a certain soprano, based on rave reviews I had read, he wrote back:
'xxxx was a pretty awful Amelia at Covent Garden last month.'
So, he was unafraid to make judgments according to standards of vocalism which he saw as non-negotiable.

Finally, to get a better handle on the sort of tenor required here, we should remember this quote from Retrospect Opera's own website:
In terms of musical characterisation, orchestral writing and dramatic impact, Raymond and Agnes by Edward Loder more than any other breaks the stranglehold of ballad, which smothered British opera for much of the nineteenth century, and comes far closer to the great Italian traditions of the day' (Roderic Dunnett, BBC Radio 3, 13 February 1995)

And with that I think we should move on from the matter of Milhofer's contribution to this recording and perhaps return to the music itself.

[Master Jacques]

Alan, thank you once again for your most interesting response. There is of course a huge difference between what we might say in personal correspondence and what we might say in print - that is sometimes not a question of courtesy, so much as a defence against legal liability!

JBS was of course a great teacher as well as a great vocal critic: he was in the business of encouraging divergence of thought, not uniformity; and his watchword was never "this is what you should think", or "this is objectively true", but rather "what do you think?" and "give reasons, boy!". He was (as you rightly say) never afraid to make judgements, but though they were always backed up by (brilliant) observation, they were in print at least never dictatorial in tone.

Coming back to Loder, none of the great singers you have compared against Milhofer (who is perhaps a "merely" good one) have ever sung a note of his work, so it behoves us to be grateful for what we have. The fee the superlative Michael Spyres might have claimed to sing Raymond (a breathtaking idea, I agree) would I dare say have far outweighed the entire budget available to Retrospect Opera, even if he could have made himself available at a few months' notice for a week in a Manchester recording studio.

We are very lucky to have this revealing recording of an important - and previously all but unsung - 19th century opera, and we should rejoice that the cast under Richard Bonynge managed the project so well. The majority of reviews reflect that graciously "half full" attitude, and quite right too. Mark Milhofer isn't Heddle Nash, of course; but he has the virtue of being alive, and able to sing the role of Raymond in clear idiomatic English, intelligent vocal style and (for many of us) in a thoroughly pleasant way while he is about it.

Now (as you rightly say) back to the music!

[Mark Thomas]

I certainly subscribe to the "half full" view. In the absence of any other recording of many an unsung work I'm content to have a "fair to middling" performance which stretched budgets often dictate in exchange for the privilege of hearing a work at all. Of course, a superlative performance is what we all crave to hear, but it is sometimes just not a realistic expectation.

[Alan Howe]

and his watchword was never "this is what you should think", or "this is objectively true"

That isn't the case, I'm afraid. And it is not dictatorial to declare something as objectively true - it's just stating a fact; in reality the danger these days is that critics all-too often align themselves with the dicatatorship of the subjective in which the 'truth' is that there is no such thing as truth - merely competing subjective opinions. No wonder we have so few great singers these days - i.e. ones whose work can be measured against objective standards and the achievements of past greats.

Here is JBS' (and my) last word on the subject:

'Can criticism and discussion be satisfactory and useful when tastes differ so wildly and people hear singers so differently? Of course, a musical performance involves much that can be observed and checked objectively. If one artist sings a run in a single breath while another takes three breaths over it, then that is a fact, not an opinion; similarly, if one of them sings distinctly and exclusively the notes that are written, whiler the other is indistinct and inexact, then these are facts which a scientific instrument could record.'
(The Grand Tradition, p.11 - emphases added)

[Alan Howe]

Oh, and I'm with Mark - I'm glad to have the recording. It's just that it could have been so much better.

[Master Jacques]

For what it's worth, there is another positive Raymond & Agnes review (online only) here:
http://www.planethugill.com/2018/08/a-real-discovery-loders-english.html

We must hope the Retrospect recording sells well, as it deserves, to enable them to continue their good work. Ethel Smyth's opera Fete Galante is next on the stocks, I understand.

[Alan Howe]

Thank you for this. However, there is no mention of Milhofer's inconsistent vibrato and thin tone.

I suggest we now move on from this particular debate and concentrate on members' views of the music.

[Mark Thomas]

I've at long last listened to Raymond and Agnes and, picking up on Alan's request in the previous post, I think the music itself is really most enjoyable. The work is not only highly dramatic, but Loder's music matches its frequent changes of mood, something which the previous generation of British opera composers seem to do less consistently. His orchestration is inventive and very varied and he's a mean tunesmith too, although he does lapse into banal commonplace from time to time. At his frequent best, Loder reminds one of early Verdi, and Raymond and Agnes is certainly worthy of revival. Unfortunately, and I'm sorry to return to this issue, my enjoyment of the recording is marred by tenor Mark Milhofer's singing. I'm happy to take on board what Master Jacques writes about his vocal style in this opera being an approximation of what audiences would have expected to hear in the 1850s - a sort of vocal HIP - I really wouldn't know. What I do know is that Milhofer's, to my ears, vibrato-ridden thinness is not to my (modern) taste, any more than is many an instrumental HIP recording. That said, the music itself has a great deal to commend it and I'd certainly like to hear more from Loder, whose Overture to The Night Dancers (an earlier opera), on a SOMM disc, is the only other piece of his I've heard.